Report comment

"Sorry, I thought witnesses and evidence is what we use to "frame" cases and "structure" arguments... not algorithms or cognitive computing?

Care to explain what you mean? "

Anonymous - The ODR Advisory Group Report makes clear that whenever the judge considers that the evidence needed to be tested that he could refer the case to a hearing in court with cross-examination.

What I was referring to is that, for example, instead of free text for parties to state their case, which then requires time by their lawyer or the opponent if unrepresented or judge to try to get to there bones of the case, they would be taken initially through a structured logic tree of questions with branches as appropriate according to answers given and which would have information on clear law at relevant stages to inform according to the answers given. These questions would replicate what a skilled lawyer might take his client through but instead of doing it in person, the lawyer would receive a clearer understanding right at the outset of instructions.

There would still be space for free text and comment to further personalise the case. For unrepresented litigants such would help them approach their case in amore structured and informed way.